Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T10:39:39.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of Evidential Reasoning in Archaeology - Robert Chapman and Alison Wylie, Evidential Reasoning in Archaeology. London: Bloomsbury Academic (2016), 264 pp., $82.00 (cloth).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Adrian Currie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Essay Review
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 782 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, M. 2015. “Experimental Archaeology at the Crossroads: A Contribution to Interpretation or Evidence of ‘Xeroxing.’” In Chapman and Wylie 2015, 42–58.Google Scholar
Caporael, L. R., Griesemer, J. R., and Wimsatt, W. C.. 2013. Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture, and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 2015. “The Philosophy of Social Technology: Get on Board.” John Dewey Lecture, American Philosophical Association 2015 Pacific Division 89th Annual Meeting, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R., and Wylie, A.. 2015. Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cleland, C. E. 2002. “Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science.” Philosophy of Science 69 (3): 447–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, C. E. 2011. “Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62:551–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, A. 2015. “Marsupial Lions and Methodological Omnivory: Function, Success and Reconstruction in Paleobiology.” Biology and Philosophy 30 (2): 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, A. 2016. “Hot-Blooded Gluttons: Dependency, Coherence, and Method in the Historical Sciences.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1093/bjps/axw005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, A., and Sterelny, K.. 2017. “In Defence of Story-Telling.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 62:14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. 2016. Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, D. 2007. Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, K. 2016. “Newton’s Corpuscular Scaffolding.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1985. “The Reaction against Analogy.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:63–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 2002. Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar